The Batman - Rate And Review Thread (Spoilers)

PTSD from the Nolan's day, the Snyder's day, etc.
I appreciate how we can discuss movies without being automatically labeled either as a "cultist" or a "hater". It's not always the case... But really, it was more of a joke than anything else.

You're talking about the "Wayne subplot" ? If so, I agree.
While I really enjoy Turturro and Serkis' acting in these scenes, my problem is, as I said above, their articulation. From the Riddler's video about the potentially corrupt Wayne family to Kenzie's revelations, Bruce/Batman is given some heavy exposition, supositions, questions and their answers from everyone around him, one after another. He kind of stops being active and that's where, for me, things become narratively very static.
That segment is really the part of the film where I could feel how much the writers sweated.

Absolutely !

 

Catwoman was pinned down by gunfire at this point I thought he got into the Batmobile to distract them and give Selina a chance to get away.

 

Yep, I have no problem with this part. Batman regaining control of the situation by scaring everyone through the Batmobile, like a true extension of the character, is a touch I liked. Also, while the assailants scatter and Gordon and Selina have a chance to escape, the main target, Oswald, is then isolated. It works for me !

 

Great points, I love that scene personally.

 

1. After the scene where Batman escapes the GCPD, we get the scene with Kenzie on the rooftop plus the public release of the voicemail. This proves the corruption involving the GCPD, Kenzie and the mayor etc. I think you could read it as Gordon then took the recording to Mackenzie before he released it and explained the situation, including about Kenzie and why he aided Batman escaping the GCPD. At the very least, I think once the corruption is exposed, the police would feel they have bigger problems than Batman. I suppose it’s just personal preference as to whether people feel that needed to be explained or you require an extra scene.

2. As for your point about the officers waiting outside the Iceberg Lounge, Batman immediately goes after Selina and says to Gordon he needs to do it his way. He would therefore get to the club before Gordon and the rest of the police. Then either a) the situation is dealt with by the time Gordon releases the recording and mobiles his troops or b) he trusts Batman to handle it and waits outside to arrest Falcone. They’re all waiting outside the club to send the message that there’s good officers who don’t work for Falcone and are willing to stand up against him.

 

The sequence does start with Batman staking out Penguin at the Iceberg Lounge. I think it’s logical for them to follow and it turns out to be a good choice because they find out about the drops location. Events were then complicated by Catwoman and Batman says as much in the film. Catwoman attacking the twins forces Batman to come out of cover. As @AVEITWITHJAMON says above (and I believe this is also the explanation MR gave during interviews), he gets into the Batmobile to draw the gunfire away from Selina and give her a chance to escape.

 

To nitpick on something around this part of the movie, my friends and I were a little bit confused about Batman and Gordon meeting at their usual spot, with the bat-signal light on, right after the vigilante escapes from GCPD headquarters. With Gordon even saying that there's now an APB on Batman, you'd expect them to keep a lower profile...

These are small details, no big deal, but there're several weird things like that in the film and depending on the day, it bothers me more or less (yeah I know, hard life...).

 

The fact that people here, big Batman fans, are confused about the actions of Batman here and are questioning it points to there being an issue with the writing.

If it was actually conveyed well, there wouldn't need to be any explanation from you or anyone else on the 'why'.

I think Batman could've found far better ways than to take his eyes off Catwoman to sneak away, into his vehicle, and rev up his engine - during which they could've just kept looking for her a split second longer, turned and shot her at any point.

 

i see nitpicks are reaching unseen levels on here

 

As is sensitivity to critique.

 

brodie. what are you even on about lmfao. your issues with the car chase are preposterous lol. there is actual valid criticism to be had with this movie, but you are out here doing this.

 

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me, but I guess I was unclear on how corrupt or in on it Mackenzie was. In the film it just kinda plays like Gordon takes over and we lose track of where Mackenzie sits in everything. I think your points do address most of my logic questions there, but I'll say that it does still feel a little convenient that the GCPD/Mackenzie does a 180 without us really getting to see how or why. You'd think the fact that doing it "Batman's way" results in Falcone getting sniped by Riddler would've fueled the speculation that the two vigilantes were working together (which is how Riddler viewed it anyhow). Just think ii may have been more powerful to keep Batman completely opposed by the cops until he becomes the hero in the third act, maybe even rescuing some cops to highlight the shift in relationship.

 

A little dramatic lol

 

For clarity - I am a Batman fan. Before there was music, before there was painting, academics, nature, and all else - there was Batman in my life.

And I saw this film in the theater six times.

My Stripes -

I'm in my (very) late 20s - and I grew up in the age of Batman: The Animated Series, Batman '89, Returns, '66, Forever, the video games, backlog comics and all in between. I was there when there was Batman: Intimidation Game, Batman: Year One, Batman Triumphant and other projects rumored and in progress.

In short, I'm pretty into the character. I had the script for Batman Begins a year or two before release. Don't know how I got it, but I did. I followed the filming, set photos, theories, rumors and the wild ride of each of the Nolan films. I lived, breathed, and **** those films. I got the Begins game on PS2 on my way to the theater. I loved Vengeance and the Arkham series.

I was excited for Batman V. Superman - until Affleck was announced. Then I was pissed. But...he sold me. I love him as Batman. The quality of films being more spotty than a Dalmatian in a ****storm, aside.

I'm always eager for new interpretations of Batman in mass media. I'm always interested in how this versatile, dynamic, flexible, interpretable character can be made into something cool yet again.

Which leads me...to The Batman (2022).

My relationship with The Batman (2022) is complicated. To be blunt - once Affleck fell off, I was against it. It's not that I love Snyder or anything (I'm mixed on him, at best) - but Affleck's Batman clearly was one that existed in a world where Batman could fight Mr. Freeze, have a Robin, and wasn't afraid to be fantastical. And bringing in a new actor/director/vision felt too soon and almost jarring. I was scared we'd be robbed of that true-to-comics Batman world that I've craved.

Because in the last decade, I admit, I fell out of love with the Nolan Trilogy. Big time. I suddenly found myself fatigued of the 'realistic' take, the voice, the fact that Bale's Batman was only around for a few years, and knowing there was no rogues outside of Falcone/Scarecrow/Joker/Ra's Al Ghul/Talia Al Ghul/Two-Face/Bane.

I think I just spent too much time on those films and got sick of them. Overexposure and honestly, the hype made me sick of them.

And when Reeves came along, and the rumors and his statements indicated the return to 'grounded' Batman, I was a bit petulant about it. I was worried they were traveling the 'safe' route in response to Snyder's Batman, going back to 'realistic, grounded' as if that was the problem with Snyder's Batman.

I was also not in favor of yet another 'early years' Batman. Between many graphic novels over the last millennia, 'Begins', many animated films and even a video game and the Gotham show, I was over it.

BUT.

The initial trailer and Reeves passion sold this, for me. I was open to it after that. The guy is a geek - and I love him. The subsequent trailers sold me, even more. I was ready.

My body was ready.

And this film did one amazing thing for me - it got me back into Batman, as a whole. I cannot explain how many new Batman graphic novels I've read this year because of this film reigniting my passion for the character. How many bizarre stories I picked up because this film taught me the value in new interpretations.

I even revisited the Nolan films a month prior to the film's release. And I've rediscovered my love of that entire series of films to the point where I dropped $300 on the Trilogy Hot Toys Batman and a making of book from 2012.

So how did I like the film? -

I like it...mostly. And I wish I loved it.

When I walked out of the film, I was okay. I was fine. I existed. The film existed. The film I was so hyped for, posed with posters for photos in excitement - I'd just seen it at 7PM the day prior to release...and I felt just okay with it.

It's a bummer, but. Can't win 'em all, right?

I think what gets me with the film is that it's so, so damn amazing in so many ways I've been craving with modern Batman films.

The film gets so much, so right!

The look of Gotham was what I'd hoped for since Tim Burton (though, the Gotham in Begins was equally great, too). The grime, the rain, the lighting, the trash, the dystopia - it IS Gotham City. It feels like a world that can be expanded upon and coloured with future installments, only to enrich it.

The batsuit is just as great as each of the Nolan Trilogy suits and Burton suits. It's very cool, very Arkham Origins. I love the practicality of the suit, the grey/black is still retained from Affleck's Batman, and it's just a vibe. Still its own thing.

Each actor did an incredible job in their roles with the material. It's clear everyone believed in this film, the world, its director and crew. As well as the characters they played. Everyone seems to be proving they're worthy to return for a sequel.

Robert Pattinson is a solid Batman, for sure. He has a great voice and heroic streak in his portrayal that I think will get better, more.

John Turturro as Falcone is the highlight for me - holy ****. He oozes sleazy charisma and was the knockout performance for me. So effortless, so cool, so slime-y. You can't help but love him and hate him. Jesus, he rocked that and I'm very upset he's already gone from the series.

The film has this noir feel, dripping from every scene. It's almost always nighttime. It's always raining and wet. The lighting is scarce and dramatic. It's amazing. The visual style feels so notable, so distinct, so striking and so very Batman in a way I'd been craving for a long time.

The Batmobile, while visually pretty okay and not entirely my thing, fits this version of the character at the time of his journey and what they did with its feel, in terms of making it a fierce machine, elevated what otherwise would've been a too-subdued and unexciting design.

For some reason, each Batman director since 1997 has had it out for Wayne Manor + Batcave combination. Nolan burnt it down. Snyder burnt it down. In short, we've not had Batman operating in the Batcave while living in Wayne Manor above in a Batman film in decades. But, somehow I dig the Wayne Tower + subway station cave idea. It's fresh, doesn't alter anything functionality-wise, and is distinct. I love it.

I don't mind the film's length, truly. Though, I'd say just for the sake of more casual Batman geeks and filmgoers and the well-being of the brand, I'd dial it back next time. Not about my personal preference, just saying.

The fight/action scenes were good, for the most part. The it felt grounded, sure - but it didn't feel like it was confined, either. It wasn't as great as the heights of the over-discussed but still great 'warehouse scene' via Snyder (yes, great scene but for the love of God, fans need to stop praising it 24/7) but it was on par with Nolan or maybe a tinge better.

Where Does It Fall Apart, For Me? Well... -

Given that I praised so much of this film, where's the issue? Well, I said I liked it - but that I wish I loved it.

Because all the things I listed above are amazing, it needs one keystone to hold it all together and that keystone is always unable to save a film. And that's the writing.

Keep in mind, the dialogue is good. The story itself, is good (for the most part). But there's so many plot-beats and moments, as well as subplots that just don't seem to make it, for me.

Batman Returns...to 'Realism' -

There's apart of me still miffed about this. From the time Matt Reeves came onboard, we've been told we're returning to 'realistic' and 'grounded' Batman. Internally, I groaned at this.

The film had an uphill battle for me in this area, which may be a more personal thing than anything. I don't think this direction is bad, but I really wish this film had gone a route of more flexibility.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is amazing and the gold standard for quality superhero 'cinema' - but it wasn't because of the grounded nature. Snyder's Batman didn't fail because it was fantastical. There is more than one way to do Batman in the 21st century on the big screen.

It feels like WB or Reeves felt that returning to the grounded well was a secret sauce to Batman on film. I feel this way mostly because 95% of Batman comics/graphic novels/animation is definitively NOT grounded. It just seems too coincidental that they went the 'grounded' route which is at odds with 95% of Batman's printed history and in line with WB's last successful Batman outing.

As a result, it feels like this film is treading the ground already done before. If it had something new to say or do with this direction, I feel it'd have justified its direction but as it stands - the film does not have anything new to add, with this style.

In fact, the most fresh thing this film could've done is give us fantastical Batman. Nobody would've expected it. Instead, this direction just feels...'safe'.

And because it's trying to convince us that it's grounded, it makes scenes such as Batman's violent landing after the GCPD jump stick out. In a grounded film, it just looks out of place. If the film stuck by the rules it was conveying - he'd be dead.

Batman takes a bomb to the face without a scratch. A bomb...to the face. His suit is intact, his mask is in one piece, he's uninjured, not concussed, and has no bad effects from losing - what we can maybe guess - was at least 20-30 minutes of consciousness.

There are other examples (Penguin's car crashing in such violent manner that should've killed him) - but you get the point.

So not only does the film tread familiar ground of the 'realistic Batman on film' road - but it bends/breaks the rules whenever it needs to. Batman can take endless waves of gunfire to his chest at point blank range when the plot demands he be impervious - but when the film needs him to be at risk, a blast to the chest nearly takes him out.

The rules of this grounded-ness is so unclear and inconsistent, which is a fault of the writing.

If the film committed in one direction - either going full realism or fully fantastical - it'd be a lot better for the viewer.

BATMAN/BRUCE WAYNE/ALFRED AND THE 'DETECTIVE' IS MIA/ARC MISSING -

The writing of Bruce Wayne/Batman is of utmost importance, and I wish I liked him a lot more than I do. For one, this was hyped up as a detective Batman film - that we were finally getting a detective Batman on film instead of glimmers of it which had been par the course in the Nolan series.

But for all that hype, and for all the things I still hear about this being Batman portrayed as a 'great' detective - he just...isn't. Keep in mind, I love the impressive little moments like Batman knowing when a thumb was severed due to XYZ. Stuff like that is great little character moments.

But aside from that, I don't see where his 'great detective' cred that he receives to this day post-release is coming from. He isolated the letters on the cipher, sure. But aside from that, Alfred did the work prior, Alfred also translated the Spanish, Penguin figured out the Spanish was incorrect leading to the URL revelation, Martinez figures out the carpet tool angle, Catwoman captures Mackenzie, she also finds Natalia's phone, etc.

Batman didn't stop a single murder, nor did he figure out much of anything, at all. He certainly didn't figure out the end goal of The Riddler.

And sure, some of this can be chalked up to his inexperience and maybe that's the point - but the film doesn't really convey that's the point about his detective skills. It tacks on the inexperience as a symbol of hope at the end of the film, but not about his skills in the detective-area.

I don't mind Batman not being a great detective in a Batman film. I'm used to it. But when I'm promised a detective Batman story, where he's supposed to figure things out - I expect that.

Having him examine a crime scene, pass off ciphers for Alfred to figure out, him checking out Riddler's letters and the box that killed Mackenzie doesn't quite make him a detective. And that's why it falls flat, for me.

As for Bruce Wayne, I understand the angle they're going for. I think a Bruce Wayne unable to separate the Batman persona from himself even when out of the costume is a compelling angle to explore.

I just wish I loved how they did it here. The film doesn't really attempt to make much commentary on it. It's just present - that's how he is, and they don't do much with the concept beyond have it be present. Given the many routes they could go with it, it's such a huge missed opportunity.

Which would be forgivable if Bruce Wayne felt compelling or likeable. Maybe that's harsh - but I didn't feel empathetic or drawn to Bruce in this film. This is not a Pattinson issue - this is a writing issue. He was written to be withdrawn, empty, broody and mopey. But that just doesn't do much for me as a viewer generally and it does even less so when the writers don't do much with it, either.

I can't help that he's not great to watch, written as is. It's not the worst issue, since he's hardly Bruce Wayne on screen in the film. But, it is an issue regardless.

I also cannot believe that after all the ridiculous and petty 'Batman gonna be emo' jokes after the news broke of Pattinson being casted, that they actually did just that. Bold choice - but I'm not so sure it paid off.

Pattinson's Batman is written great in the monologue narrations. Though, as much as I think Pattinson is solid as Batman, I do feel he lacks presence in the costume. He doesn't feel imposing or 'present' really. He's understated to a degree that I'm not jazzed about. But he also has moments of greatness, so it's the least concern I have, here.

And his Bruce Wayne makes sense on paper, and I see where they were going with it - but that doesn't mean it's fun to watch or interesting. Or likeable.

As for Alfred, I found myself having a hard time caring about the relationship between these two. They've so little screentime, no warmth, no hints at much of the past until the hospital scene.
The film relies so much on your preexisting Batman knowledge of why Alfred is important and it just doesn't work for me. You can't rely entirely on your audiences' familiarity with previous films/comics to do the heavy lifting on your characters, especially when you try to cash in via an emotional scene that your film has not earned.

As for his 'arc' of realizing he needs to be a symbol of hope rather than vengeance...while that's a great idea on paper, in practice, it's barely there. The only indication that Batman learns this is when the Riddler goon repeats Batman's line back to him - and we cut to Batman. But Batman's expression is...the same as it typically is. The music is what tells us his wheels are turning.

We know what his arc is solely due to his monologue at the end. It's tacked on - we don't see him progress and change through the story to build to this change of perspective. It's literally told to us.

There's no reason to believe Batman at the start of the film would NOT be helping survivors like he is at the end of the film. So as it stands, Batman's arc arrives in the last 10 minutes of the film, with no prior hints, and is conveyed to the audience via voiceover. That voiceover is trying to do the heavy lifting and it does not work in a film that's typically super heavy on belaboring most things.

Show, don't tell.

Lastly, Bruce's parents' death isn't super present here. Yes, we don't need to see it all over again, but it'd be nice to hear Bruce talk about it.

THE RIDDLER -

I haven't mentioned The Riddler yet - but I'm so mixed on how I feel about him, it's insane. On one hand, I love the look, the method of puzzles and the streaming publicly - it all feels twisted an on brand for The Riddler. But I wish I felt he had this quizzical, quirky charm of insanity that made him gleeful to try and outdo people. Instead, he was more of a commentary on the incel, angry movement of disillusioned young men that I think is 100% relevant and great to call out - but I'm not sure The Riddler was the right guy for the job, here.

He was full of anger. Given his backstory, that makes sense. But I wish he was more subdued and I always felt the line where he claims his only strength is in his mind and not his body - being a bit silly considering he physically overpowers each victim somehow - most bigger than him.

And from a writing angle - I always forget he's in the film once the Catwoman storyline involving Falcone rears its head. It's not until the bullet hits Falcone that I go "Oh yeah, he's still in this." I've had conversations with fans who love this film that have said as such - and that's a clear writing issue.

I almost forget about The Riddler when I talk about this film which is a damn shame because Paul Dano is dynamite in everything he's in. He tries so hard in this film.

But that's also an issue - it almost feels like he's trying to out-crazy other villains, here. It feels a bit try-hard, at times. He needed to be reined in, a little.

GORDON, CATWOMAN AND SIDE CHARACTERS - WHY CARE? -

Another issue with the film's writing is the side characters. Gordon, for example, is super likable and Jeffrey Wright rocks. He's practical, level headed, he really sells this "I'm working with a guy in a bat costume and it's weird but Gotham is so ****ed up this is my best bet" angle so well.

But...outside of him having scenes with Batman, there is nothing else to him. Is he married? Is he taking heat for working with Batman? Is he suffering for it? What are his values? Why should we care about him?

I just feel nothing. I like him - but I don't know him.

There's nothing to flesh him out, at all - and thus, nothing to make him compelling. I know more about Martinez's background just from the 'carpet tool' talk he has with Batman. I gleaned so much from that little anecdote that fleshes him out far more than Gordon. And he also has a change in his character from the beginning of the film - he has a small arc, but it's still there and more present than anything to do with Gordon, who has earned more than what he was given writing-wise.

Selina Kyle/Catwoman is likely the most fleshed out character in the film. For one, we get her backstory, her parent lineage, we hear her motivations, her hopes for her future, we know what she dislikes - and we get a clear moment of growth for her. In fact, she's the most relatable and human character in the film.

Her girlfriend? When they find her body - I didn't feel...anything. We didn't even know her. I've seen the film over 10 times in full, 6 times in the theater - and I don't remember her name. The film clearly wants us to care about her, but I feel bad for not doing so. In a three hour film, it's hard of me to ask for MORE story - but I also think it's hard of the film to ask me to care about her when we find her body.

In fact, she feels like an example of 'fridging'. Her only existence in the film is to provide the motivation for her partner's anger/rampage in the story. She has no agency, no scenes dialogue outside of a recording - and she is simply defined by 'partner' and 'victim'. It's a bit disappointing, I suppose.

Now, I haven't mentioned Falcone or the Penguin, here - but there's a reason for that. While they're not super fleshed out, the film doesn't ask much of them other than to be villains and it doesn't ask much of its audience to care about them.

Penguin? Sleazy, up and coming criminal that works under Falcone. Cool. Got it.

Falcone? Devilishly sly, charismatic and a smooth talker.

There's a reason why not fleshing these guys out works whereas the other don't - because they're written in a way that we glean a lot from them just from their dialogue, personality and performance alone.

They're obstacles to the characters and that's all they need to be for now.

Plot Threads - Coming Undone -

A huge issue for me is the plot threads that either fizzle out or go nowhere. For example, I love the idea that the Waynes were not entirely perfect people. I think having Thomas be a bit corrupt strengthens Bruce's motivation to save the city that not only killed his family, but that he now owes because of the debt it paid for the fortune he has. In the film, they play with this possible corruption angle with Falcone and Wayne and tease the audience.

But what do they do with it? Not really...anything. In a film that's three hours long, the film is required to vehemently justify its increasing runtime. It has to prove without a doubt that every bit is necessary, and something like this doesn't do it. It's a waste.

Why am I hard on this type of thing? Because the subplot not only lasts for such a brief time, the span of maybe 8 minutes - but what does it do to Bruce Wayne? Bruce was quiet, reserved, reclusive, mopey, and angry before this revelation. How was he after this possible revelation? Well, quiet, reserved, reclusive, mopey, and angry.

Big moments like this should change the character. Visibly. And maybe it'd take time to sink in for Bruce - but, the film doesn't let that happen, either. Instead, we're treated to a scene with Falcone, an amazing monologue by Falcone played wonderfully, only to have the story beat and his monologue denied and things are put back in the same place as they were before this revelation.

A subplot introduced and debunked in 8 to 10 minutes. What even was the point?

Other issues such as the GCPD relationship with Batman being uneven get to me. By the start of the film, Batman is working with Gordon and reluctantly let into a crime scene. By the midpoint, he's in GCPD on their ****-list for interfering, in which a man died in the process.

One of the superiors is listing charges for Batman, at this point. We're to believe they not only never unmasked him, but didn't take him to a doctor instead of a precinct? In a film like this, with so much explained - they didn't bother explaining this.

On top of that, Batman decks Gordon, flees the scene, police give chase and so desperate to nab him, they shoot to kill in the actual building.

Yet...the next time we see the GCPD, Batman is walking among them with no issue, but standing with them as they arrest Falcone. He's able to investigate yet another crime scene.

What...? Why?

Batman was considered for charges, then assaulted an officer and a Lieutenant, fled the scene, was shot at, and jumped off a public building - and the GCPD just says "Nah, fam - it's all good!" or just forgets it entirely.

It just comes across as sloppy, on the part of the writers.

Are any of these a huge deal? Normally, no.

But I think what makes it stick out like a sore thumb is that the filmmakers, crew and director put an insane amount of love, detail and thought into every angle of this film. The look, the style, the lighting, the costuming, the vibe and so on. Which shows me what they can do. And to put that 110% effort into those things...only to not see the issue with writing that does this, really feels incongruent. If they'd put the same effort into the writing as they did the aesthetics - I would love this film.

It's a bit like a cake that is decorated with meticulous, and careful detail. The piping is flawless. The fondant is smooth as glass, and the writing is calligraphy-level. But the actual cake inside is half-baked.

The uneven, juxtaposition of absolute air-tight quality control with everything in this film aesthetically highlights the jarring lack of air-tight quality control with the story/characters.

In Conclusion -

The Batman is not bad film. It's still pretty good. I'm not attempting to 'bash' this film and I hope this isn't seeming in good faith.

I'm holding this film to a high standard because of several reasons. For one, it's clear Matt Reeves is such a massive fan and thus, I expect him to have a bit more of an eye for these things than maybe some others.

Two - this series comes after so many iterations of Batman. I expect each new franchise to build off of what the previous series' did. I expect them to find what works, what maybe hasn't been done, innovate, and improve. I hold this to a higher standard because it should improve on the past.

Third, this film is so expertly crafted visually, so amazingly acted, so perfectly shot and costumed and edited - that the meat of the film, the story, should be at that same level.

But for me, it isn't.

I really, really wanted it to be. I'll say again, when this film was months from release - I was ready for this to be MY new Batman. I was ready for the Nolan series to be unseated, for a series that was just as great as those films but embraced a more traditional aesthetic.

It just didn't get there.

Perhaps a great sequel or two can flesh this film out and make it better in retrospect, but I also think every film should stand on its own.

I've no doubt I'll enjoy the Reeves-verse Batman content, but I just hope the writing tightens up and we get an emotional connection to hang onto.

But I'll keep watching because...it's BATMAN!

 

I thought The Batman was a great movie overall but I echo Kevin smiths comments on it. Though, where we differ is that Batman Begins was more impactful to me than The Batman was where he said he felt similar to when he saw Batman Begins for the first time. I just feel like I resonated with Batman Begins and it's themes way more but that's just me.

Still, I'm happy Matt Reeves is handling Batman now. No, I don't think the film is a masterpiece, but it's still the best CBM of the year and one of the best of recent years. A solid 8/10 and a good starting point for what I hope will lead to even better sequels over time. I feel like it's kinda unfair for me to instantly expect this new trilogy to have the same effect the Nolan films had. It's okay to feel like that's a high ceiling that doesn't need to be met or exceeded in order to enjoy new adaptions of the character.

 

You guys are so bold to criticize Battinson here . Just kidding, I think my thoughts about it are the same. The moment I realized TDK trilogy will be forever my favourite live action Batman, I started to appreciate The Batman much more, after lots of views too.
The asthetics, the noir feel, Giacchino's score, every technical aspect is 10/10, no doubt (Batman's introduction is a masterpiece itself). The casting is on point, and Rob has a lot of potential to be an amazing Bruce/Batman. The script is where are the problems for me, like you all said, the grounded aspect is not that consistent. The pacing being too slow doesn't help either, and a few more action scenes (or being a little longer) would've made a more enjoyable experience for me. Anyway, the future is bright for Reevesverse.

 

As someone who wasn't here when the hype train was designated for TDK Trilogy Station, it's quite interesting to see the reactions ultimately come out to be "this was great but it wasn't my Batman". I imagine whatever's next will illicit a similar reaction from me. I'm not gonna say any of the criticisms listed are invalid, they are absolutely are valid points to make. But I've always looked at entertainment in terms of "are the pros good enough to override the cons?" And for me personally, The Batman does that in spades.

For me personally, what always connected me to Batman was his damaged humanity. This compassion hidden by a layer of bat-themed trauma. And for me personally, while The Batman isn't the best Batman movie ever made, good God is it the most human. I'm indifferent to whether Batman is fantastical or grounded. What makes this movie my favourite movie of all time is the heart displayed within it. It's objectively not perfect, but Matt Reeves had the balls to make a Batman movie where the heart of Bruce Wayne and his efforts to allow that heart to shine through the extreme pain and trauma covering it was the main focus of this movie. And for me personally, he's my goddamn lord and savior for that. Because that exact concept saved my life as a kid. And being in a movie theatre, surrounded by people being introduced to why this is my favourite fictional character of all time?

That was ****ing everything, man. And it's why despite not being the objective best movie in the series, it's still my favourite. I wouldn't change a thing.

 

Ha, you know what it was like back then?

"FINALLY! Batman films that are FAITHFUL TO THE COMICS!"

Round and round we go.

 

I swear, and I'm not attacking your view - but when I read something like this, I'm wondering if I even saw the same film.

This film doesn't seem like it has 'heart' (and that's not a knock on it, because some of my favourite films aren't about 'heart' and being human). It's just not an emotion based film. It comes across super cold.

In order for an emotional film to 'be' - it has to give us a lot of characters that have depth. And this film doesn't flesh out its characters much at all aside from Selina and maybe The Riddler a bit. The characters are more cogs in the machine.

Bruce especially, to me, doesn't have depth in this film. In fact, that's one of the most common issues general audiences will tell you about this film. We hear no backstory, no emotional beats about what he feels, nothing about how he misses his family, nothing about how he feels about Selina or any of the trauma he's going through.

And some will say the audiences don't 'get it' and that they missed 'so many clues' - but that's something that many here maligned Snyder-Fanboys for saying in defense of those films. The film doesn't have to be super on the nose, but it can't be so subtle that people miss so much, either.

The only scene where we see any 'heart' try and come through is in the hospital scene with Alfred - and that scene is pretty dang unearned given the lack of Serkis' screentime.

I don't see how it's the most human Batman film, at all. I'd say The Dark Knight Rises is the most human. Because not only does it talk about human emotions and Bruce's condition/flaws, he grows, very visibly, from it.

In this film, Bruce is depressed, quiet, he mumbles, and is very stoic. That doesn't change, at all. His words are more hopeful in the last 8 minutes - but that's not enough for me to call it the most human Batman film.

 

For me the heart of the movie comes from the journey of the main character, which is Bruce. He starts in complete darkness, shut away from the world and as you say mumbly, stoic and depressed.

Through the course of several experiences and revelations in the movie he starts to gain back his humanity and what's so good about Pattinsons performance is that you can see this through his facial expressions when interacting with people. Most notable Selina, Gordon and yes Alfred.

Batman in this movie starts off saying 'I'm vengeance' and then ends it as the City's hope and saviour. It's the story of a person starting in darkness (he literally has an aversion to sunlight in the beginning of the movie) and ending it in light through hope and growing to care about others instead of his own vengeance and anger(ending the movie rescuing and saving people in the clear light of day).

It's a great arc to me and actually similar to the arc Batman goes through in Batman Vs Superman. However for me The Batman executes that arc a lot better than BvS. And I say that as a Snyder fan.

 

This film has the most heart of any Batman movie I’ve ever seen, personally. I’ve never wanted to give any Bruce Wayne a hug more than this one. He was sooo broken for the majority of it, he really seemed like a lost little kid. And then that 3rd act happened and I cried. No Bat flick’s ever gotten that kind of emotional response from me before.

 

I'm gonna be honest, for the most part I really don't agree that there's nothing in the film to display any of the listings you've already put. I can provide plenty of examples. They're just shown rather than told

Backstory? A given that it's not shown and goes without saying on why. It's a part of the character everyone already knows.

Emotional beats on what he feels? How about literally any lingering shot of Bruce's face/eyes in the entire movie? That's all conveyed via these shots rather than told. If you wanna argue there should be more to make it apparent, that's a fair argument to make. But say there's no emotional beats conveying what Bruce is feeling imho is just not correct.



Nothing on how he misses his family? While I can agree it's definitely subtle, I think the best scene which displays that is the scene where he reopens his parents' bedroom. It's definitely not told, but everything from the music, to Pattinson's performance, to the shots used display such a nostalgic longing to me.

Nothing on how he feels about Selina? Once again, all told through performance. The man literally jammed an adrenaline shot into his leg to save her, when 5 seconds ago he looked like he had pretty much accepted his fate when a shotgun was pointed at his head. The slight movement forward in the final kiss that never was. Once again, if you wanna argue there should've been more, that's absolutely fair. But it definitely is present.

His trauma? Bruce wears that on his face and his demeanour the entire movie, in my opinion. It all conveys a man who is clearly not mentally well. And the reason why this movie has more heart than say TDKR as you mention is due to this starting point. Bruce in TDKR stops seeming mentally unwell the moment he puts back on the costume, imho, and is back to business as usual in terms of demeanour. And business as usual, for Bale, doesn't really give me the feeling of a guy who has any real trauma within him. It's why I don't really feel as much of a connection to him.

Battinson meanwhile seems downright mentally tormented from second 1 to second 9,407. And while sure, Battinson's overall personality doesn't change with his realization, I think that's more realistic. Someone that severely traumatised isn't just going to unlearn the consequences of his trauma and change his demeanour overnight. The movie essentially admits that via this lack of change you mentioned. But the movie also displays that even despite that, despite the fact that this Bruce Wayne is so utterly mentally broken and traumatised, he's still able to become a hero. He's still able to learn how to use his pain in favour of something better.

That is...****ing real to me, man. That is everything, to someone like me. The idea that even someone that scarred can be better than their demons. The idea that even someone that scarred can start to heal. Not through changing their personality, but through something as simple as a realization of hope. I'm not arguing there's nothing human about TDK trilogy or any other Batman movie. There's even human scenes in Batman and Robin. But...nothing in any of the movies prior has conveyed something that human to me, something that personal to me, something that relatable to me as this man consumed by his trauma finding a way to not let it define him through hoping for a better tomorrow.

I'm sorry that you felt this disconnect to Battinson and you don't feel any of what I'm describing here. Honestly I get the feeling it's the same as my disconnect to Batbale and my disconnect to whatever Batman comes after Battinson. I completely respect where you're coming from and I understand why. But...for me personally?

This is my Batman.

 

Its a deeply human film, Bruce's pain feels subtle and real and nuanced rather than showy and overwrought - there's more emotion to me in his reaction to the Mayor's son and the news talking about his parents murder (not to mention Alfred's subsequent reaction to the footage of the Mayor's son) than any big monologue about his parents death I can think of.

On top of that, the relative coldness and quietness of Pattinson's performance feels bold to me. It's not the most accessible or welcoming performance - which makes total sense because he's playing a massively closed off and flawed person.

I don't think he's "more" human than Bale's Batman, people understate how tragic and complicated Nolan's version is, but there's a ton going on with him. It's a really, really rich film narratively - moreso than almost any other superhero movie barring The Dark Knight, which I still overall prefer and will always be one of my all time favourite films but do think that leaving my deep nostalgic attachment out of it there are several things The Batman does better (The Batman has more actually applicable, serious real world commentary for instance).

 

I do think this film has heart, but I didn't feel bad for this Bruce Wayne all that much honestly. I think it's probabaly just a me thing though and not really the movie. This Bruce Wayne, based on this movie, just doesn't feel that strong to me as a character but that could certainly change with the sequel. If this Bruce Wayne progresses past the emo stoicness of this movie, then that'll be fantastic and I have a hunch that's exactly where Reeves is going hopefully.

I also think both Batman Begins and TDKR are very emotional Batman movie. TDKR is particular had a lot of heart, something people accuse Nolan of not having for whatever reason in his movies.

 

So Best Buy released another batch of Steelbooks for this film and I bought my copy because I really wanted one lol.